Talk:Federalist No. 9/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to leave these comments on the talk page but figured why not do the review. Also I had seen No. 9 on the 2024 Yale Directed Studies syllabus—so just a tiny little bit more clout in the shadow of No. 10. :)

Structure

These would likely apply to the whole Federalist Papers series so starting by asking for my edification because I'm sure you've had these a few times already:

• Shouldn't the beginning of the lede explain what the essay is about? Seems to wait until the second paragraph to explain what the essay is.
• Some background would be helpful for a general reader/breadth to understand why these were written, how they function as a series, what role they played in ratification. Given the niche topic, as a reader, I expected to read a Background section to explain its context before going into the Summary.
• I.e., the current section infers that Hamilton was Publius rather than that being a communal pseudonym.
• Why did Hamilton get this topic?
• Are there no reliable, secondary references to source the Summary? It seems like much of the Analysis covers the core of the Summary, so I would expect sources to be available for the Summary.
• Is Aftermath the best description of that section? Reads more as Response or Legacy. Most of its contents are not fallout or consequences.
• "explain the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and persuade New York to ratify it" What provisions did #9 explain?
• Wouldn't a scan of the first edition text be a more appropriate infobox image to identify the subject?
• Some sources appear to italicize Federalist in "Federalist No. 9" but not the numbers. What's the thinking behind not italicizing here?

Text

• Lede: No. 9 was "the eighth of The Federalist Papers" where is this sourced?
• "He criticizes those who think that republics are not feasible" how? If summarizing his argument rather than giving a blow-by-blow, as a reader I'm generally looking to understand his main points for and against.
• "too large for this to be an effective argument" how/why?
• "enlargement of the orbit" unclear what this is, or why the reader should want to know it became "extending the sphere"
• "Unlike ... this view" what view?
• Made in-line copy edits – feel free to take any here for discussion
• Is Algora a reliable publisher?[1]
• Life without the Internet Archive is hard but there appears to be some additional coverage in The Authority of Publius: A Reading of the Federalist Papers, pp. 126–128
• What role did No. 9 play in the series?
• "How to apply developments in political science has remained a controversial issue." unclear what this means

Will pause there for now czar 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source spot-checks

Levinson

• Hamilton's dismissal of the ancient republics was reminiscent of Niccolò Machiavelli, who criticized the viability of ancient Italian republicanism. Source says the opposite: Machiavelli "wrote admiringly" of republicanism.
• this view presents an optimism derived from Enlightenment philosophy Feels like a stretch since the source only likens Publius to an "Enlightenment optimist", not crediting its its origin.
• to counter an argument by Montesquieu that was raised by the anti-federalists The source doesn't attribute the argument to the anti-federalist.
• p. 40 okay but again doesn't back up that the Montesquieu argument was presented by the anti-federalists
• p. 41 okay

White

• though No. 10 addresses the issue more directly Where does the source say that #10 address the enlargement of the orbit more directly? It says #10 discusses its effects on factions in more detail. Also I didn't realize until I saw this source that #9 and #10 are contrasting—that wasn't clear from only saying that they were rival dissertations, which could just mean that they were competing. The source points out the Hamilton/Madison contrast in scholarship, which might be worth saying more explicitly here, or at least explaining the contrast.
• Rest okay but unclear now why the mention of #14 is relevant to #9's legacy

Might return to spot-check, given that there were more liberties taken here than I had expected.

Criteria

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See comments above

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Comments on lede above

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   Based on the spot-check, looks like Montesquieu is being conflated with their contemporary anti-federalists though the text does not make this connection

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig okay and from spot-check

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Updated with US rationale

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Scan of original publication?

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thank you for this interesting read. I'm looking forward to reading the rest of this series. On hold for the standard seven days for replies and edits. czar 23:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)